|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 21:21:50 GMT -5
My understanding is that he was convicted of child sexual abuse. Yes but that does not make him a pedophile, a serial abuser, or someone who will even molest again. It makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 1, 2014 21:45:55 GMT -5
Yes but that does not make him a pedophile, a serial abuser, or someone who will even molest again. It makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 22:27:08 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? I can't speak for the people who made that decision. I wouldn't discount some prejudice though. Example: I would be prejudiced about a man who had been convicted of rape if my adult daughter had a date with him. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 1, 2014 22:29:41 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? It's pretty silly to compare prejudice against a black man on the grounds that he is black, with a convicted child sex offender on the grounds that he's a convicted child sex offender. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 6:31:05 GMT -5
I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? I can't speak for the people who made that decision. I wouldn't discount some prejudice though. Example: I would be prejudiced about a man who had been convicted of rape if my adult daughter had a date with him. But I assume you would trust your daughter's judgement and investigate the circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 2, 2014 7:45:04 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? While parents and children should be educated and vigilant around all people, extraordinary situations (long history of creepiness--back seat of car, at the dining room table; SOL expired; no current abuse) justify extraordinary measures. Yes, he is a threat. Can they protect their children in his presence? Probably. They could also probably protect their children in a room with loaded handguns under every chair. But wouldn't it be more prudent to move the handguns out of the presence of children? Or would you leave the loaded guns under every chair and limit your actions to educating the parents and children about handguns and asking the parents to be vigilant? |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Aug 2, 2014 7:54:26 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? Rational, you must be winding us up!! |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 2, 2014 10:15:23 GMT -5
I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? It's pretty silly to compare prejudice against a black man on the grounds that he is black, with a convicted child sex offender on the grounds that he's a convicted child sex offender. Rat is showing some strong evidence that he doesn't think putting a convicted CSA perp amongst children is any more unsocial then dismissing a black convert scheduled to be in a mtg. with only white folks! He doesn't understand after all the explanations the mind workings of the workers who assign meeting privileges! Most of the workers don't have to be int he same mtg. with either case every Sun or Wed. night, so they feel it is okay to assign a CSA perp in the closest mtg. for him as well as the black convert! But I will assure Rat that I'll gladly be in mtg. with a black person any old day over a convicted CSA perp! Why? Usually these perps have instruction they are NOT supposed to be within so many feet, blocks, miles or whatsoever where children are routinely expected to be found! Thus the workers are disobeying the parole's dictation of the CSA perp IMO! They should not be encouraging the perp to disobey his parole dictation, now should he? IF he should by chance re-offend and it was caused by the workers demanding that this perp be allowed to be in a mtg. where children are available...do you not think the workers should face legal ramifications? I do! It's bad enough to have to be with the perp in a mtg. where there are no children expected to be......I feel that these CSA offenders are those who Jesus was speaking about "offending these little ones" and that it would be better if a stone was hung around their neck and cast into the sea. NOW that is not speaking to mercy...but where is the mercy of the offender when he/she have raped small children? This is "offending these little ones." That is my understanding...for what little it seems to be worth. And also I feel perhaps that does also affect the legal aspect that is within our country where CSA perps are not supposed to be anywhere within so many feet, yards, blocks etc where little children are routine expected to be. Now back to being in a meeting with a black person? Yes, he/she might be quite welcome...fact is, we had an elderly black man in our mtgs. back when I was in my teens. I enjoyed old Tudy....we even went to his funeral...Charlie Mitchell had a part in his funeral services......then Tudy's daughter's pastor took over and all he said was to back up what Charlie had said.....we missed Tudy for a long time. On the first Sunday we often stayed at the meeting place and had dinner, he would stay as well and he would tell some of the greatest stories of the old deep south US......he bore no malice against the slavery days, and we didn't bear any malice toward Tudy being a free man...fact is we were glad he was allowed to chose what he wanted to do or be......he was a grand old soul. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 10:46:13 GMT -5
While parents and children should be educated and vigilant around all people, extraordinary situations (long history of creepiness--back seat of car, at the dining room table; SOL expired; no current abuse) justify extraordinary measures. Yes, he is a threat. So rules like these would be in place? Good example! Limiting actions taken that contribute to the protection of all has never been something I endorse, just something of which I have been accused. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 11:10:51 GMT -5
Rat is showing some strong evidence that he doesn't think putting a convicted CSA perp amongst children is any more unsocial then dismissing a black convert scheduled to be in a mtg. with only white folks! I am pretty sure they are both people with no indication that they are a threat. This is not about the workers. Then report him to his parole officer.No, it is the criminal who is not following the court order.Again, your fight seems to be with the workers. What the offended does is his own responsibility. "They told me to do that" is not an excuse. The workers cannot demand anything. Well, they can but no one has to follow their demands. Although almost any translator will point out that the "little ones" were not children. Blacks were rejected from social gatherings for much the same reasons that you are rejecting the CSA offender. The myth of the black rapist of white women is the twin of the myth of the bad black woman-both designed to apologize for and facilitate the continued exploitation of black men and women. Black women perceived this connection very clearly and were early in the forefront of the fight against lynching.
Gerda Lerner Many whites claimed that although lynchings were distasteful, they were necessary supplements to the criminal justice system because blacks were prone to violent crimes, especially the rapes of white women. Arthur Raper investigated nearly a century of lynchings and concluded that approximately one-third of all the victims were falsely accused.Myrdal, 1994, p. 561 The myth was that black men could not control themselves around white women. The point is that prejudice is never a good thing - even if you manage to pull bits and pieces out of the bible to support your beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 11:20:09 GMT -5
It's pretty silly to compare prejudice against a black man on the grounds that he is black, with a convicted child sex offender on the grounds that he's a convicted child sex offender. Not when you look historically at societies attitudes towards black people and learn what the myths were regarding especially black men. He is a convicted sex offender. It does not mean he is going to jump on a child in meeting and molest them. And this could also be applied to the myths regarding homosexuals and the 'danger' they were to young children. From the psychology department at ucdavis:Members of disliked minority groups are often stereotyped as representing a danger to the majority's most vulnerable members. For example, Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices. Black men in the United States were often lynched after being falsely accused of raping White women.
In a similar fashion, gay people have often been portrayed as a threat to children. Back in 1977, when Anita Bryant campaigned successfully to repeal a Dade County (FL) ordinance prohibiting anti-gay discrimination, she named her organization "Save Our Children," and warned that "a particularly deviant-minded [gay] teacher could sexually molest children".
Bryant, 1977, p. 114 |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 11:30:11 GMT -5
I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? Rational, you must be winding us up!! Nope. Just trying to pierce the emotional cloud. If it is felt a person is a threat to children they should be reported even if the authorities say there is nothing they can do. If everyone in the meeting wants to move the person - move away. Then he will not be there in the meeting where people will be spending time guessing what evil thoughts he is thinking instead of focusing on what they usually focus on when they are sitting in meetings. And the other man sitting in the corner who is so pleasant and helpful in managing the children - don't give him a thought, or try to guess what he is thinking, because he had not been convicted - yet. The point is, the convicted man is actually less dangerous than the non-convicted man because you know who to watch. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Aug 2, 2014 12:51:59 GMT -5
The point is, the convicted man is actually less dangerous than the non-convicted man because you know who to watch.
Totally agree with this because unless you're aware of a specific risk you can't take steps to avoid it - however, if you are aware...
|
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 2, 2014 15:10:26 GMT -5
In a way, you probably should be taking the same steps with everyone to a degree whether you are aware or not. After all all the ones you are now aware of were once someone you were not aware of. So I think vigilance is required by parents all the time. Not fear, but rather putting in place guidelines that apply to everyone. I feel it's sad that we need to do that, but when you think of how many times the offender has been someone close to the family or a relative, you really do have to. First line of defense though is to educate your children about boundaries with anyone. Even the ones they love, which yes, could be a parent. Make sure they know they will be listened to and not judged so they are not afraid of reporting it. I made sure my kids knew these things and I also told them that they might be told not to tell and if they did they would hurt someone they loved. I told them it didn't matter what they threatened, tell anyway and we'd deal with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 2, 2014 16:31:50 GMT -5
While parents and children should be educated and vigilant around all people, extraordinary situations (long history of creepiness--back seat of car, at the dining room table; SOL expired; no current abuse) justify extraordinary measures. Yes, he is a threat. So rules like these would be in place? Good example! Limiting actions taken that contribute to the protection of all has never been something I endorse, just something of which I have been accused. Yes, rules like that would be in place. So you agree that in certain circumstances, ONE ASPECT of an overall solution could be to move the person from a meeting with children to a meeting without children? Please don't rehash old arguments like "if the parents have reason to suspect abuse, they should report him to the authorities..." because in our scenario they have ALREADY DONE THAT and the authorities had no grounds to take any action. Or are you saying that if the authorities have no grounds to limit a person's access to children, you are against parents taking the same action on their own? That would seem to be in contradiction to your recommendation that parents assume the responsibility to protect their children. |
|
rs
Junior Member
Posts: 77
|
Post by rs on Aug 2, 2014 16:57:58 GMT -5
In a way, you probably should be taking the same steps with everyone to a degree whether you are aware or not. After all all the ones you are now aware of were once someone you were not aware of. So I think vigilance is required by parents all the time. Not fear, but rather putting in place guidelines that apply to everyone. I feel it's sad that we need to do that, but when you think of how many times the offender has been someone close to the family or a relative, you really do have to. First line of defense though is to educate your children about boundaries with anyone. Even the ones they love, which yes, could be a parent. Make sure they know they will be listened to and not judged so they are not afraid of reporting it. I made sure my kids knew these things and I also told them that they might be told not to tell and if they did they would hurt someone they loved. I told them it didn't matter what they threatened, tell anyway and we'd deal with it. But Snow, you can't possibly take the same steps whether you're aware or not - that would mean I don't take my boys anywhere, don't let them mix with anyone - all I can do is be careful in situations where I have no awareness of any increased risk, and avoid situations where i know this is the case... Agree that educating the children re what is ok and what is not is a massive part of protecting them. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 2, 2014 19:16:51 GMT -5
If an individual observes an incident or threat of child abuse or neglect, or learns of an incident or threat of child abuse or neglect, and the individual has reasonable cause to believe that child abuse or neglect has occurred or will occur a report to CPS must be filed.So rules like these would be in place? Good example! Limiting actions taken that contribute to the protection of all has never been something I endorse, just something of which I have been accused. Yes, rules like that would be in place. So you agree that in certain circumstances, ONE ASPECT of an overall solution could be to move the person from a meeting with children to a meeting without children? Please don't rehash old arguments like "if the parents have reason to suspect abuse, they should report him to the authorities..." because in our scenario they have ALREADY DONE THAT and the authorities had no grounds to take any action. Or are you saying that if the authorities have no grounds to limit a person's access to children, you are against parents taking the same action on their own? That would seem to be in contradiction to your recommendation that parents assume the responsibility to protect their children. Is this a case of waffling?  |
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 2, 2014 19:57:14 GMT -5
In a way, you probably should be taking the same steps with everyone to a degree whether you are aware or not. After all all the ones you are now aware of were once someone you were not aware of. So I think vigilance is required by parents all the time. Not fear, but rather putting in place guidelines that apply to everyone. I feel it's sad that we need to do that, but when you think of how many times the offender has been someone close to the family or a relative, you really do have to. First line of defense though is to educate your children about boundaries with anyone. Even the ones they love, which yes, could be a parent. Make sure they know they will be listened to and not judged so they are not afraid of reporting it. I made sure my kids knew these things and I also told them that they might be told not to tell and if they did they would hurt someone they loved. I told them it didn't matter what they threatened, tell anyway and we'd deal with it. But Snow, you can't possibly take the same steps whether you're aware or not - that would mean I don't take my boys anywhere, don't let them mix with anyone - all I can do is be careful in situations where I have no awareness of any increased risk, and avoid situations where i know this is the case... Agree that educating the children re what is ok and what is not is a massive part of protecting them. I am not talking about that rigid a set of rules that you wouldn't take your children anywhere. That's living in fear and that's not what I'm advocating. I'm just saying we need to be vigilant around close friends and family and educate our kids to know safe boundaries and feel comfortable reporting what doesn't seem right. Pretty much what you are saying in fact. "all I can do is be careful in situations where I have no awareness of any increased risk", |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 23:00:46 GMT -5
grounds to take any action. Or are you saying that if the authorities have no grounds to limit a person's access to children, you are against parents taking the same action on their own? That would seem to be in contradiction to your recommendation that parents assume the responsibility to protect their children. The authorities would not offer a solution to simply move the offender away from children. The parents can't take action that would incarcerate the offender. I am against parents taking an action that just move the problem to a different location. That is not a solution. Move the offender. It will remove the anxiety from some parents. There is no solution as long as the parents are convinced that they are unable to protect their children if there is a convicted offender in the meeting. It doesn't matter what the charges were or whether the offender is considered to be a threat to children. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 2, 2014 23:12:56 GMT -5
But Snow, you can't possibly take the same steps whether you're aware or not - that would mean I don't take my boys anywhere, don't let them mix with anyone - all I can do is be careful in situations where I have no awareness of any increased risk, and avoid situations where i know this is the case... And this is the situation that I found so sad back at the beginning. On a number of different levels. Yes, educating the children, and others, regarding the dangers from others regarding child abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 3, 2014 1:02:24 GMT -5
I am against parents taking an action that just move the problem to a different location. That is not a solution. Is that an acknowledgement that this man is a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2014 8:16:18 GMT -5
I am against parents taking an action that just move the problem to a different location. That is not a solution. Is that an acknowledgement that this man is a problem? It is an acknowledgement that I do not think moving people to a different venue is a solution. It didn't work for the RCC and it has not worked well for the F&W even though it did get the offenders away from their latest victims. However - change comes slowly. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 3, 2014 14:03:05 GMT -5
Is that an acknowledgement that this man is a problem? It is an acknowledgement that I do not think moving people to a different venue is a solution. It didn't work for the RCC and it has not worked well for the F&W even though it did get the offenders away from their latest victims. However - change comes slowly. You're comparing apples and oranges. 1. Church management posting its unreported criminal staff to another location. 2. Church laity arranging for their children and a convicted offender to attend different meetings. Which of these didn't work for the Catholic Church? |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2014 15:15:00 GMT -5
It is an acknowledgement that I do not think moving people to a different venue is a solution. It didn't work for the RCC and it has not worked well for the F&W even though it did get the offenders away from their latest victims. However - change comes slowly. You're comparing apples and oranges. 1. Church management posting its unreported criminal staff to another location. They are not criminals until they are charged and convicted. They moved people who they felt were a threat to children. They moved people who they felt were a threat to children. Both of them worked to protect some children from the person moved. fixit - people in the meeting believe the man is a threat to their children. Go ahead and move the man so the parents will feel that those children will not be threatened. |
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 3, 2014 16:20:55 GMT -5
You're comparing apples and oranges. 1. Church management posting its unreported criminal staff to another location. They are not criminals until they are charged and convicted. They moved people who they felt were a threat to children. They moved people who were accused of sexually abusing children, but they probably felt they were reformed and wouldn't reoffend. Alternatively, they blamed the abused children. |
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Aug 3, 2014 16:25:21 GMT -5
It will have to come to that Rat or there will be more then 60,000 people leaving out of the 200,000 citizenship within the 2x2 religion! Although as it was mentioned IF the convicted CSA perp has parole guidelines that he is NOT to be within so many feet, yards, blocks of where children are expected to be and the workers allow the perp to go to the mtgs. where even a visiting child is known to happen...then the workers should be held in contempt of court! Right?
|
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 3, 2014 18:23:40 GMT -5
Yes, it makes him a man convicted of child sexual abuse. The friends preferred that their kids don't attend the same meeting as him. Do you have a problem with that? I have the same problem with this as I would with someone wanting to move a black person to a different meeting without saying why. All I am trying to find out is why. Do they suspect he is a threat to their children? Do they feel they cannot protect their children in his presence? Or is it simply prejudice? You could ask the same questions of the authorities who stipulate that child sex offenders are to remain a distance away from children. |
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 3, 2014 19:48:57 GMT -5
It will have to come to that Rat or there will be more then 60,000 people leaving out of the 200,000 citizenship within the 2x2 religion! Although as it was mentioned IF the convicted CSA perp has parole guidelines that he is NOT to be within so many feet, yards, blocks of where children are expected to be and the workers allow the perp to go to the mtgs. where even a visiting child is known to happen...then the workers should be held in contempt of court! Right? Who is responsible to live by the terms of the court order? The workers? No. Who is responsible to enforce the terms of the court order? The workers? No. The workers are not part of this at all any more than it would be my fault if I told you to drive 90 MPH in a school zone where the posted speed limit is 20 MPH and you got stopped. It is you making the decision to drive 90 MPH. You, and you alone, have to shoulder responsibilitry for your actions. I know the workers make good scape goats but people have to start being responsible. |
|
